Polyamory: Bisexuality and Open Intimate Relationships

There are probably two types of 'misunderstandings' about bisexuality that are more common: undefined and uncommitted. On the first kind: heterosexual discrimination against homosexuals, and homosexual discrimination against 'bi', are 'disrespect for the individual's self-judgment' performance. Just as some homo may think it is a temporary misnomer, so some homo may think bi is a temporary misnomer. So it seems hard to see why homo should impose exactly what he suffered from the 'minority' on those who are less numerous than himself. But in fact, it may not be difficult to understand, discrimination, where there are only two reasons, one is ignorance, one is fear. 

So sometimes, perhaps the weaker the group, the poorer the Shared resources, the worse the 'internal' discrimination. On the second: in all the articles I've read so far about clarifying Bi, there seems to be a conscious or unconscious disconnection from infidelity. One dimension seems to be missing here: the way intimate relationships are implemented. Why can't we have 'open relationship' or 'polyamory'? If the people who agree with this 'pattern' happen to be bi, and the people they love happen to be of different genders, does this become evidence that bi is No loyalty? I personally do not believe that 'one-to-one fidelity' is an absolute 'virtue', especially in intimate relationships that are not intended for reproduction. In my opinion, the essence of a good relationship is not 'loyalty', but 'honesty'. 

Honesty is not a means of reducing guilt for cheating, but a truly equal two-way communication. It is not to describe their own imagination of a picture, but on the basis of two or more rational expression and listening to the two-way honesty. If a lie is the lubricant of life, the lubricant may make communication easier and easier at first, but harder and harder later on -- unless it is checked and balanced by tolerance. But without this lubrication, the process goes the other way: from the hard to the easy. Hand sanding, rather than relying on the smoothness of the potion, will make the final shapes run together into an automatic state, rather than constantly adding potions to fill the gap. 

But it is precisely because this 'polishing' is so difficult, so difficult that it always fails so quickly, that people have no chance to appreciate the beauty behind, and then they believe in the 'lie' + the power of patience. In fact, romantic lies and 'in the name of love' patience, but let your burden to maintain a balance, and you could have no burden. On the basis of honesty, you can see the possibility of an open relationship. The emphasis on one-to-one is really just about possession and keeping possession; In order to rationalize the possessiveness, even beautify the 'jealousy', either as it is with the 'love' accompanied by the nature, or as a fighting force or strength, the embodiment of instinct. To put it bluntly, jealousy simply stems from insecurity, and insecurity is simply a matter of mistrust: either you don't trust yourself or you don't trust the other person. At the root of this distrust is a failure to communicate honestly. 

People are afraid to tell the truth, but what exactly are they afraid of? In fact, if a person's partner has a crush on a third person, they may indeed feel uncomfortable, but this discomfort may not be 'jealousy' at all. Personally, if A and I like each other and A likes B, then: assuming B is also my type, I would not mind A developing an intimate relationship with B (and I know the details). To use A poetic expression, it is 'love is sharing'. Even better, if I like each other with A and B, this may be A better state. But if B were excluded from my category at all, I would probably be excluded, not jealous, but excluded, being excluded and excluded from communication. 

However, in fact, if my intimacy with A is based on the accumulation of the above 'sincere' communication, I can hardly imagine such an accident. (in other words, if this happens, either continue to communicate and reach an agreement with me before A and B start dating; Or if they can't agree, they go their separate ways or do something else. This is one of the meanings of 'sincerity'. Because two souls are 'close' enough people, it is difficult to have such a huge difference in aesthetic. 

In my opinion, aesthetics is a moral judgment. Physical appearance and temperament are always difficult to distinguish; There is no simple level of physical attractiveness or sexual attraction. So when you find someone or something attractive, there must be your core moral values involved. Universal universal universal universal universal universal universal universal universal This means that people with similar aesthetic/moral values are more likely to develop long-term relationships with me. Words are indeed ambiguous and it is not uncommon for words to fail to express their meanings. However, with a minimalist attitude and enough patience to 'control' the words, I believe that nothing is completely impossible to communicate. I see how many intimate relationships in my life, from older people to people my age, are kept being packaged. This is the age of packaging, the age of the fiction bubble. 

Packaging is all about fear. What is it about fear? Is it fear of the truth will let each other down? If so, don't waste time by being disappointed early. For me, intimacy in life is not 'necessary'; It's what I want, not what I need. Words are like dinner plates, and the most urgent and sincere messages are like food. As the wine flowed, I called 'sincerity' hungrily. Instead of driving words, people are driven by them. If it is hard to avoid such 'etiquette' in some social activities, it is too pitiful to do so in intimate relationships.